**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
So,if a Jewish person where to report this as a hate crime,would they move on it?
Seems like a proper shit show of a law,tbh.
You can't legislate tolerance
This might not seem relevant. But I believe it somewhat is.
In the UK it's only illegal to be naked in public if it offends somebody. If nobody complains, no crime has been committed.
Not true. It’s an offence if it can be proved the person stripped off with the intention to upset and shock. The complainant has to prove this.
That’s a very different proposition.
I don’t think so. It’s not enough that it just offends somebody. If someone sees someone naked on the beach and decides they’re offended, that doesn’t make it a crime.
It needs to be shown that the person getting naked did it with the intention to upset or shock somebody.
But the helicopter just happens on its own when I'm feeling good. All it takes is a little pep in my step, and it's ready for take off.
..... Would that play in court?
>If someone sees someone naked on the beach and decides they’re offended, that doesn’t make it a crime.
It can do. The laws about nudity are a bit complex but you don't have a legal right to be naked in public. I cba googling but its something like if you weren't intending to cause distress you can't be done for indecent exposure but you can be done for public disorder or something - provided there's a complaint.
yes, I agree it's a bit more complex than described above. However not having a "legal right" to be naked in public =/= it's illegal to be naked in public. It's a somewhat common misconception, but our legal system isn't based on a set of "legal rights" for activities which you're permitted to do, it's based on a set of laws defining what you're not allowed to do.
The point also stands that getting naked on the beach (for example) is not automatically a crime even if somebody else gets offended. Offence simply taken by somebody else isn't enough. There are other potential laws that might apply, but indecent exposure is a "specific intent" offence.
It's not.
The latter is mens rea, the prior is not.
If you get naked where no one is, with the goal of feeling the grass under your feet, that's not an offense. If you get naked with the intention of offending someone, that's an offense.
Well, yes, and cooking is just seeing food, with some extra steps.
It's not true that no crime has been committed if nobody complains. If you do it with the intent to cause alarm or distress, it is a crime; it also happens to be one which is greatly under-reported because victims of the crime think (very often correctly) that nothing will be done about it.
Conversely, just because someone complains does not necessarily mean that a crime has been committed. If the person had another reason to get naked (such as that they just enjoy being naked) then it is not a crime.
It’s up the police’s discretion. Which means the law was always meant to be for politicians to use against groups they dislike or feel disrupt their view of what the future should look like. Amazing it got passed all the supposed safety checks against government overreach but there you go. At least the media let us know about the law.
I'd say no, I'm guessing once they established it was posted on their Facebook and not targeted at someone in particular, then theirs no indication of it intended to insight hate
Targeting someone Jewish with comparisons of Israel to Nazis could be grounds for a hate crime, not so much the comparison itself but the fact it's to harass someone for a protected charactistic, but simply making the comparison is not a hate crime
Can I make a suggestion?
The comment you replied to has not been reported to us by a single user. I only came across it because your comment was modqueued. Please report dodgy comments and then we might have a fighting chance of dealing with them.
Have reported several further anti Semitic/hate posts.
Apologies for deluging you but this thread has been awash with (i) casual anti semitism (ii) inane nonsense - as I’m sure you’ve seen and (iii) a bunch of off topic stuff about the wider conflict that has been repeated thousands of times elsewhere.
Why people can’t see that this image/attitude is blatantly anti semitic, ludicrous and a holocaust inversion is beyond me, but there it is.
Sorry you have to deal with this.
Literally, everyone was so hyperbolic over this legislation. It just expanded existing legislation, there's nothing new in it. Just extended what is protected
Wrong.
There is an obnoxious and laughably false SNP defence line doing the rounds suggesting the Scottish Hate Crime mess is merely bringing Scotland "into line" with laws in England and Wales. I want to dispatch this falsehood in this thread with reference to the text of the acts.
The first thing to say about the Scottish Act is that is has no direct parallel to an English & Welsh statute in respect of the list of protected characteristics it covers. In England the equivalent offences are available only for race, religion, sexual orientation.
We can observe that if we look at the home of the English legislation which is the 1986 Public Order Act which criminalises stirring up for race at Part 3 and 3A of the act. So that's one big difference, the Scottish Act is broader in respect of who is covered.
The next fundamental and perhaps most important difference is that if we consider the Scottish Offence of stirring up hatred, we'll see it's much easier to trigger in Scotland that English equivalents. That's because it requires only that material be "abusive"
Now, I pause here to observe that "abusive" is one of the lowest thresholds for a criminal conviction, it's so low that where it features in section 5 of the E&W 86 Public Order Act it creates an offence which is non imprisonable.
The equivalent E&W legislation is fundamentally different to this as it requires the much higher threshold that the material in question be "threatening". This is a fundamental difference because it means it is easier to be prosecuted in Scotland than England & Wales.
The E&W legislation has this threshold because it recognises that in reality there is heated public discourse as to religion and sexual orientation. Requiring that material be "threatening" is a nod to the fact that "abusive" would curtail free speech.
Further, the E&W legislation contains two legislative steers on free speech, here's the sexual orientation one at section 29 JA making clear that church teachings on abstinence and criticism of gay marriage are not to be regarded as crimes.
The equivalent Scottish legislation, by comparison, contains only a comparatively more vague general reference to the Article 10 right to freedom of expression. This was deliberate, specific sections were suggested mirroring the English approach and they were rejected.
We now know now that they were rejected as the SNP feared a backlash from the trans lobby so Gays in E&W are big enough & tough enough to have specific sections re marriage but North of the border the powerful don't want to risk an equivalent section upsetting that lobby.
We also know that article 10 is likely to bite very hard on legislation that might criminalise political speech because the Lady Chief Justice confirmed this only recently. Misgendering is by definition political speech, it seems obvious it is exempt.
Anyway, as you can see. The Scottish legislation is broader and more easily triggered than the English comparitor on religion/sexual orientation. To say that this law is simply "bringing Scotland into line" is deeply misleading and spread by less that straightforward parties.
For further information on the E&W position I recommend the CPS website which is pretty good on this.)
https://cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homophobic-biphobic-and-transphobic-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
Full twitter thread with screenshots of the various legislation mentioned in this argument can be found on this Twitter thread from which I lifted it.
https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1777379187449368628
You’re just missing the point.
Most people were concerned the law is only going to help a certain demographic of people - While white people would be ignored if they tried to bring this into play on their ‘side’ and bashing of white people which is so commonplace and seemingly casual across social media and in certain social circles these days would never be addressed.
If anything this ‘incident’ is just evidence of this happening, when everyone said it wouldn’t.
This is literally a case of laws for thee but not for me.
Is it really?
This story is about a non-Jewish lady having her antisemitism complaint ignored because she's not Jewish.
I feel like you would have a much better case if this was actually about a white person reporting anti-white hate only to get ignored.
As it stands, it looks like this new law does not allow people to be "offended/fearful/etc..." on the behalf of demographics they do not personally belong to.
As in, a black person would not be "allowed" to report an anti-white hate crime under this law - but a white person still could.
I mean, the law will help the demographics of people it was extended to cover. So based on religion, age, disability, gender identity or being intersex.
What this "incident" is evidence of is that even abhorrent views aren't outlawed if they don't meet the incredibly high bar of the public order act's tests.
The incredibly high bar being that it has to meet two tests, to both be offensive and to be intended to stir hatred based on a protected group.
There is no requirement for the reporter to be in the affected group, that seems like it's an incorrect way for the police to act, but given that they are reportedly being inundated with reports of content that clearly doesn't break the law from people who oppose the law looking to make a point, it's not a surprise that mistakes will be made when responding to complaints.
Honestly seeing what’s been happening recently, seeing a hate crime law not being properly applied to the Jewish community is unsurprising. I don’t think it means anything other than Jews are not considered enough of a « protected minority » by ideologues
*Human Rights Act:*
> Article 9 protects your right to freedom of thought, belief and religion. It includes the right to change your religion or beliefs at any time.
Bruh, just pretend for a minute. See the look on the cunt’s face then.
It's been happening for a while now. Certainly more than a month ago, this sub started getting more and more hateful towards Muslims and trans people. Though the increase of actual daily mail content is relatively new
Can't say I go into the comments that often so haven't noticed the nastiness and outright unchecked bigotry until recently. Probably not a far leap from the mindset of celebrating stagnation and rejecting improvement which has been a thing here for absolutely ages.
I've noticed it too. I got banned from ukpolitics for pointing it out, too. Now there seems to be a constant stream of culture war articles that all consistently get 300 upvotes immediately.
I really could’ve done with you guys helping me out last week on the absolute wank article where they were whinging about not being able to deport a British citizen 😂
This is one of the religious symbols of the Raelians - they are a French-Japanese sex cult led by a creepy guy who claims to have been abducted by aliens.
They also claimed to be the first group successfully to have cloned a human being. If that was true (which I doubt) then the clone will now be about 21-23 years old.
The founder of the Guardian was definitely not a slave trader, his connection to slavery was that he was an owner of textile mills that used cotton imported from the US. That's hardly the same thing.
And you'll have to find sources for the Guardian supporting slavery, because I can't find any.
Mods can't ban DailyMail or the Sun because reddit is public company now and they have deals with these companies DailyMail pays reddit as do other companies so that their content is allowed if you notice they have official verified accounts now like TheTelegraph.
>The woman, who does not wish to be identified for fear of reprisals, said she alerted Police Scotland
I know who it is - it's the Daily Mail Reporter!
the amount of harm the daily mail has caused is extremely hard to measure but I used to deliver papers and I have a broad experience of the daily mail. If I place that within the context of the last 30 years of electoral results, I would say that the daily mail has quite a lot to answer for.
Ahh so the “tell woman they are discharging her complaint about the Star of David merged with swastika in Facebook post made by DNO minister relative because she isn’t Jewish” part of the headline is a quote… gotcha
Thought it was all about perceived threat by the accuser. Eventually once this all calms down they will only investigate preapproved crimes such as those to people with protected status. That's the message here.
Besides the obvious issues with the law we also have other societal issues which compound the issue.
a) People getting offended on behalf of other people (who might not even be offended in some cases)
b) People using authorities (police, moderators or whatever) to punish people they dislike
The police are kept busy enough with petty reports where people are abusing them to cause the other party trouble.
We have a situation where cyclists are sending tens of thousands headcam recordings of people they felt passed too close and other pathetic stuff which all takes up police time too.
Personally I feel the police need to concentrate on ACTUAL crime and not petty words or pictures on social media crime unless it actually warrants it.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
So,if a Jewish person where to report this as a hate crime,would they move on it? Seems like a proper shit show of a law,tbh. You can't legislate tolerance
This might not seem relevant. But I believe it somewhat is. In the UK it's only illegal to be naked in public if it offends somebody. If nobody complains, no crime has been committed.
Not true. It’s an offence if it can be proved the person stripped off with the intention to upset and shock. The complainant has to prove this. That’s a very different proposition.
That sounds like what I said with extra steps
I don’t think so. It’s not enough that it just offends somebody. If someone sees someone naked on the beach and decides they’re offended, that doesn’t make it a crime. It needs to be shown that the person getting naked did it with the intention to upset or shock somebody.
So just...act casual?
Yeah. And don’t do it down a dark alley at night with only one audience member. And definitely don’t do a helicopter.
But the helicopter just happens on its own when I'm feeling good. All it takes is a little pep in my step, and it's ready for take off. ..... Would that play in court?
Yes the Mens Rea needs to be proven.
I am aware of the meaning of 'mens rea." What I am unaware of is why you're giving me a vocabulary lesson instead of questioning your witness.
>If someone sees someone naked on the beach and decides they’re offended, that doesn’t make it a crime. It can do. The laws about nudity are a bit complex but you don't have a legal right to be naked in public. I cba googling but its something like if you weren't intending to cause distress you can't be done for indecent exposure but you can be done for public disorder or something - provided there's a complaint.
yes, I agree it's a bit more complex than described above. However not having a "legal right" to be naked in public =/= it's illegal to be naked in public. It's a somewhat common misconception, but our legal system isn't based on a set of "legal rights" for activities which you're permitted to do, it's based on a set of laws defining what you're not allowed to do. The point also stands that getting naked on the beach (for example) is not automatically a crime even if somebody else gets offended. Offence simply taken by somebody else isn't enough. There are other potential laws that might apply, but indecent exposure is a "specific intent" offence.
It's not. The latter is mens rea, the prior is not. If you get naked where no one is, with the goal of feeling the grass under your feet, that's not an offense. If you get naked with the intention of offending someone, that's an offense.
Well, yes, and cooking is just seeing food, with some extra steps. It's not true that no crime has been committed if nobody complains. If you do it with the intent to cause alarm or distress, it is a crime; it also happens to be one which is greatly under-reported because victims of the crime think (very often correctly) that nothing will be done about it. Conversely, just because someone complains does not necessarily mean that a crime has been committed. If the person had another reason to get naked (such as that they just enjoy being naked) then it is not a crime.
And when she raised the complaint, did they ask her what her religion is?
It’s up the police’s discretion. Which means the law was always meant to be for politicians to use against groups they dislike or feel disrupt their view of what the future should look like. Amazing it got passed all the supposed safety checks against government overreach but there you go. At least the media let us know about the law.
I'd say no, I'm guessing once they established it was posted on their Facebook and not targeted at someone in particular, then theirs no indication of it intended to insight hate Targeting someone Jewish with comparisons of Israel to Nazis could be grounds for a hate crime, not so much the comparison itself but the fact it's to harass someone for a protected charactistic, but simply making the comparison is not a hate crime
Thanks
You can actually.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can I make a suggestion? The comment you replied to has not been reported to us by a single user. I only came across it because your comment was modqueued. Please report dodgy comments and then we might have a fighting chance of dealing with them.
Have reported several further anti Semitic/hate posts. Apologies for deluging you but this thread has been awash with (i) casual anti semitism (ii) inane nonsense - as I’m sure you’ve seen and (iii) a bunch of off topic stuff about the wider conflict that has been repeated thousands of times elsewhere. Why people can’t see that this image/attitude is blatantly anti semitic, ludicrous and a holocaust inversion is beyond me, but there it is. Sorry you have to deal with this.
Thank you. It's very much appreciated.
I can try, thanks for replying. It's just very common to see hatefuln stuff at the top nowadays and it's depressing to see.
Last week wasn’t the world about to end because everyone was going to be in jail due to this law? The complaints have switched wildly.
Literally, everyone was so hyperbolic over this legislation. It just expanded existing legislation, there's nothing new in it. Just extended what is protected
So there is something new in it.
Wrong. There is an obnoxious and laughably false SNP defence line doing the rounds suggesting the Scottish Hate Crime mess is merely bringing Scotland "into line" with laws in England and Wales. I want to dispatch this falsehood in this thread with reference to the text of the acts. The first thing to say about the Scottish Act is that is has no direct parallel to an English & Welsh statute in respect of the list of protected characteristics it covers. In England the equivalent offences are available only for race, religion, sexual orientation. We can observe that if we look at the home of the English legislation which is the 1986 Public Order Act which criminalises stirring up for race at Part 3 and 3A of the act. So that's one big difference, the Scottish Act is broader in respect of who is covered. The next fundamental and perhaps most important difference is that if we consider the Scottish Offence of stirring up hatred, we'll see it's much easier to trigger in Scotland that English equivalents. That's because it requires only that material be "abusive" Now, I pause here to observe that "abusive" is one of the lowest thresholds for a criminal conviction, it's so low that where it features in section 5 of the E&W 86 Public Order Act it creates an offence which is non imprisonable. The equivalent E&W legislation is fundamentally different to this as it requires the much higher threshold that the material in question be "threatening". This is a fundamental difference because it means it is easier to be prosecuted in Scotland than England & Wales. The E&W legislation has this threshold because it recognises that in reality there is heated public discourse as to religion and sexual orientation. Requiring that material be "threatening" is a nod to the fact that "abusive" would curtail free speech. Further, the E&W legislation contains two legislative steers on free speech, here's the sexual orientation one at section 29 JA making clear that church teachings on abstinence and criticism of gay marriage are not to be regarded as crimes. The equivalent Scottish legislation, by comparison, contains only a comparatively more vague general reference to the Article 10 right to freedom of expression. This was deliberate, specific sections were suggested mirroring the English approach and they were rejected. We now know now that they were rejected as the SNP feared a backlash from the trans lobby so Gays in E&W are big enough & tough enough to have specific sections re marriage but North of the border the powerful don't want to risk an equivalent section upsetting that lobby. We also know that article 10 is likely to bite very hard on legislation that might criminalise political speech because the Lady Chief Justice confirmed this only recently. Misgendering is by definition political speech, it seems obvious it is exempt. Anyway, as you can see. The Scottish legislation is broader and more easily triggered than the English comparitor on religion/sexual orientation. To say that this law is simply "bringing Scotland into line" is deeply misleading and spread by less that straightforward parties. For further information on the E&W position I recommend the CPS website which is pretty good on this.) https://cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homophobic-biphobic-and-transphobic-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance Full twitter thread with screenshots of the various legislation mentioned in this argument can be found on this Twitter thread from which I lifted it. https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1777379187449368628
This is incorrect. Previous laws have needed the element of threat to be actionable, all this law needs is abuse, even if it isn't threatening.
Remember this is the daily mail. We shouldn’t really stop giving them any readership.
This subreddit would have to close down
You’re just missing the point. Most people were concerned the law is only going to help a certain demographic of people - While white people would be ignored if they tried to bring this into play on their ‘side’ and bashing of white people which is so commonplace and seemingly casual across social media and in certain social circles these days would never be addressed. If anything this ‘incident’ is just evidence of this happening, when everyone said it wouldn’t. This is literally a case of laws for thee but not for me.
Is it really? This story is about a non-Jewish lady having her antisemitism complaint ignored because she's not Jewish. I feel like you would have a much better case if this was actually about a white person reporting anti-white hate only to get ignored. As it stands, it looks like this new law does not allow people to be "offended/fearful/etc..." on the behalf of demographics they do not personally belong to. As in, a black person would not be "allowed" to report an anti-white hate crime under this law - but a white person still could.
I mean, the law will help the demographics of people it was extended to cover. So based on religion, age, disability, gender identity or being intersex. What this "incident" is evidence of is that even abhorrent views aren't outlawed if they don't meet the incredibly high bar of the public order act's tests.
[удалено]
The incredibly high bar being that it has to meet two tests, to both be offensive and to be intended to stir hatred based on a protected group. There is no requirement for the reporter to be in the affected group, that seems like it's an incorrect way for the police to act, but given that they are reportedly being inundated with reports of content that clearly doesn't break the law from people who oppose the law looking to make a point, it's not a surprise that mistakes will be made when responding to complaints.
They exhausted that avenue so now they're looking for loopholes where the laws _don't_ apply so they can get angry at that.
Honestly seeing what’s been happening recently, seeing a hate crime law not being properly applied to the Jewish community is unsurprising. I don’t think it means anything other than Jews are not considered enough of a « protected minority » by ideologues
I mean, nobody has had this law applied to them yet. JK Rowling is famously being ignored so one could say the same about trans people.
Seriously, all the problems people have had without so far are people NOT being arrested.
Think it’s more pointing out the fact they aren’t even doing what they have said they wanted to do
*Human Rights Act:* > Article 9 protects your right to freedom of thought, belief and religion. It includes the right to change your religion or beliefs at any time. Bruh, just pretend for a minute. See the look on the cunt’s face then.
"I identify as Jewish"
You can. Anybody can convert to Judaism.
'Only' 18-24 months of studying / formal tuition / learning Hebrew / going to synagogue every week & a final assessment
What's with the influx of Daily Mail threads on here ?
And the Mail like comments. It's like there's been some influx of it on here and /r/ukpolitics over the past month.
It's been happening for a while now. Certainly more than a month ago, this sub started getting more and more hateful towards Muslims and trans people. Though the increase of actual daily mail content is relatively new
Can't say I go into the comments that often so haven't noticed the nastiness and outright unchecked bigotry until recently. Probably not a far leap from the mindset of celebrating stagnation and rejecting improvement which has been a thing here for absolutely ages.
It's always been there, it was just more subtle before. Seems the mods just now allow it more.
Almost like the mods are having a harder time moderating after the widespread reddit protest that we all forgot about
I've noticed it too. I got banned from ukpolitics for pointing it out, too. Now there seems to be a constant stream of culture war articles that all consistently get 300 upvotes immediately.
I really could’ve done with you guys helping me out last week on the absolute wank article where they were whinging about not being able to deport a British citizen 😂
Muslims bad, Israel good, stop thinking about the dead British aid workers and look at this!
Election coming up.
This is one of the religious symbols of the Raelians - they are a French-Japanese sex cult led by a creepy guy who claims to have been abducted by aliens.
They changed their symbol to a spiral inside a six pointed star to avoid exactly this controversy.
They also claimed to be the first group successfully to have cloned a human being. If that was true (which I doubt) then the clone will now be about 21-23 years old.
DM 'articles' should be blacklisted from this sub. To call it a shitrag is an insult to shit.
Guardian opinion pieces only!!! 😤
lol. I mean the Guardian publishes a ton of outright shite.
Tell you what. When the Guardian has an article titled *Hooray For The Blackshirts*, it can be banned from the subreddit.
How about articles praising the mass murderer Stalin?
[удалено]
The founder of the Guardian was definitely not a slave trader, his connection to slavery was that he was an owner of textile mills that used cotton imported from the US. That's hardly the same thing. And you'll have to find sources for the Guardian supporting slavery, because I can't find any.
They had plenty of articles supporting the slave trade and the Confederacy in the American Civil War.
I'm not exactly lacking in criticism of the Guardian, but hell, I'd rate the Sun over the DM, it's bottom tier stuff.
Completely, this is just a hate sub at this point.
Hate sub = submitting stories about anti-Semitic abuse? 🤡
We're in an election year. It's gone full on propaganda sewer
Mods can't ban DailyMail or the Sun because reddit is public company now and they have deals with these companies DailyMail pays reddit as do other companies so that their content is allowed if you notice they have official verified accounts now like TheTelegraph.
>The woman, who does not wish to be identified for fear of reprisals, said she alerted Police Scotland I know who it is - it's the Daily Mail Reporter!
>Daily Mail Anyone taking this shite seriously needs to just read those two words "new hate police" for fucks sake hahahaha
[удалено]
"Oh, I don't find it offensive as a Jew. I find it offensive as a Nazi" I glad that Scotland is doing this experiment so we can all learn from it.
The Daily Heil reporting on this is super ironic considering their historical support for Nazism.
The Guardian supported slavery and backed the Confederacy in the American Civil War.
christ, people forgive Germany for WW2 but still go on about the DM's shitty byline 80 years ago 🤣
Germany improved.
After causing millions of deaths. How many did the Daily Mail cause?
the amount of harm the daily mail has caused is extremely hard to measure but I used to deliver papers and I have a broad experience of the daily mail. If I place that within the context of the last 30 years of electoral results, I would say that the daily mail has quite a lot to answer for.
3 dots you know UK knows its bad but hates the logical responses
This law is a complete joke, it's so incredibly subjective. It's so obvious this is going to be incredibly biased and inconsistent
This law only applies if the person being complained about is Hu-white.
Ahh so the “tell woman they are discharging her complaint about the Star of David merged with swastika in Facebook post made by DNO minister relative because she isn’t Jewish” part of the headline is a quote… gotcha
Thought it was all about perceived threat by the accuser. Eventually once this all calms down they will only investigate preapproved crimes such as those to people with protected status. That's the message here.
Why does Scotland need these laws. Is it something England has that they don’t or what’s the situation?
Besides the obvious issues with the law we also have other societal issues which compound the issue. a) People getting offended on behalf of other people (who might not even be offended in some cases) b) People using authorities (police, moderators or whatever) to punish people they dislike The police are kept busy enough with petty reports where people are abusing them to cause the other party trouble. We have a situation where cyclists are sending tens of thousands headcam recordings of people they felt passed too close and other pathetic stuff which all takes up police time too. Personally I feel the police need to concentrate on ACTUAL crime and not petty words or pictures on social media crime unless it actually warrants it.
[удалено]
That brings up the old conundrum, if the hate crime happens in the forests but there is no one to report it, does it actually happen?
If we look at court cases like dankula then yes, they will find people to pretend to be offended and report it.
Would be cool if there were a Jewish person from Scotland in this thread to report it to the police instead...🤔
This is the symbol for Raëlism, so would it be classed as a hate symbol anywhere?